Saturday, March 19, 2005
Hold Bush Accountable
I am greatly saddened that as a patriotic citizen who has served his country in the military and civilian sectors, that there has been so little accountability in our nation’s government regarding the incompetent prosecution of the Iraq war by the Bush administration. It is clear to anyone who looks beyond the administration’s distortion and misinformation that this President, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, his Vice President, Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor cum Secretary of State respectively, have not been, and are not now competent to successfully prosecute the war in Iraq.
President Bush and his team failed in comprehending the wise and accurate counsel from our broader, bi-partisan military and civilian experts regarding the troop strength required to take down the Iraqi military, win the peace and defend the building and implementation of democratic institutions in Iraq.
President Bush and his team also failed to understand the wise and accurate counsel of our broader, bi-partisan military and civilian experts regarding the urgency and means to work effectively with the defeated Iraqi military to build an effective Iraqi security force to assist in, and then assume responsibility for Iraq’s defense and democracy building.
President Bush and his team also failed to exercise the necessary intellectual rigor and moral commitment to adequately supply our extremely capable and courageous troops to do their job without unwarranted risk. Bush and his war team were negligent in supplying our troops with body armor, vehicle add-on armor, up-armored Humvees and we now find even with tourniquets that could have saved military personnel from bleeding to death on the battlefield.
As a consequence of these colossal intellectual and moral failures by President Bush and his team, we have had each day for some time now, and will have for some time into the future, needless deaths and injuries to our wonderfully bright, highly skilled, courageous and committed service men and women and to Iraqi civilians, and to U.S. and foreign nationals serving there. These are deaths, injuries and great tragedy for the families and friends of those killed and injured, which are over and above the enormous price always paid to secure freedom through war. They would not be occurring except for the incompetence of our nation’s Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush and his Vice President, Secretary of Defense and former National Security Advisor.
It is time for all intelligent and morally grounded members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation and similar colleagues throughout the Senate and House to have a serious, private talk with President Bush to achieve the following three outcomes. First, to explain to him the cost in lives lost and broken from his intransigence and his misinformed and immature actions regarding his conduct of the Iraq war. Secondly, to inform him of the importance of dismissing Secretary Rumsfeld as a clear acknowledgement to our forsaken troops and their families, our nation and the world of his earnest repentance and sincere endeavor to change. And finally, to charge him to graciously obtain the counsel of those extraordinarily wise and qualified bipartisan military and civilian experts that he has so far shunned, and to carefully listen to and incorporate their wisdom and advice into his prosecution of this war.
With these steps of accountability there will be a strong likelihood of our nation mitigating the effects of the Bush administration’s failures as fully and quickly as possible and achieving a turnaround toward a timely, true and honorable victory of peace and democracy in Iraq as well as greater security for the people of our nation. Without these steps, the failures of President Bush and his team will not only continue to produce unnecessary daily death, injury and tragedy for our troops and their families and for civilians in Iraq, but will further alienate and morally isolate us from the world community – and will enable the products of the massive terrorist training operation put in place in Iraq by the failed conduct of this war to spill over onto our allies’ shores and our own shores in the not so distant future.
All of us must communicate to Senators Grassley and Harkin and Representative Steve King the necessity and urgency of instilling intelligence, morality and a chance for a valid and honorable victory into this President’s conduct of the Iraq war.
President Bush and his team failed in comprehending the wise and accurate counsel from our broader, bi-partisan military and civilian experts regarding the troop strength required to take down the Iraqi military, win the peace and defend the building and implementation of democratic institutions in Iraq.
President Bush and his team also failed to understand the wise and accurate counsel of our broader, bi-partisan military and civilian experts regarding the urgency and means to work effectively with the defeated Iraqi military to build an effective Iraqi security force to assist in, and then assume responsibility for Iraq’s defense and democracy building.
President Bush and his team also failed to exercise the necessary intellectual rigor and moral commitment to adequately supply our extremely capable and courageous troops to do their job without unwarranted risk. Bush and his war team were negligent in supplying our troops with body armor, vehicle add-on armor, up-armored Humvees and we now find even with tourniquets that could have saved military personnel from bleeding to death on the battlefield.
As a consequence of these colossal intellectual and moral failures by President Bush and his team, we have had each day for some time now, and will have for some time into the future, needless deaths and injuries to our wonderfully bright, highly skilled, courageous and committed service men and women and to Iraqi civilians, and to U.S. and foreign nationals serving there. These are deaths, injuries and great tragedy for the families and friends of those killed and injured, which are over and above the enormous price always paid to secure freedom through war. They would not be occurring except for the incompetence of our nation’s Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush and his Vice President, Secretary of Defense and former National Security Advisor.
It is time for all intelligent and morally grounded members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation and similar colleagues throughout the Senate and House to have a serious, private talk with President Bush to achieve the following three outcomes. First, to explain to him the cost in lives lost and broken from his intransigence and his misinformed and immature actions regarding his conduct of the Iraq war. Secondly, to inform him of the importance of dismissing Secretary Rumsfeld as a clear acknowledgement to our forsaken troops and their families, our nation and the world of his earnest repentance and sincere endeavor to change. And finally, to charge him to graciously obtain the counsel of those extraordinarily wise and qualified bipartisan military and civilian experts that he has so far shunned, and to carefully listen to and incorporate their wisdom and advice into his prosecution of this war.
With these steps of accountability there will be a strong likelihood of our nation mitigating the effects of the Bush administration’s failures as fully and quickly as possible and achieving a turnaround toward a timely, true and honorable victory of peace and democracy in Iraq as well as greater security for the people of our nation. Without these steps, the failures of President Bush and his team will not only continue to produce unnecessary daily death, injury and tragedy for our troops and their families and for civilians in Iraq, but will further alienate and morally isolate us from the world community – and will enable the products of the massive terrorist training operation put in place in Iraq by the failed conduct of this war to spill over onto our allies’ shores and our own shores in the not so distant future.
All of us must communicate to Senators Grassley and Harkin and Representative Steve King the necessity and urgency of instilling intelligence, morality and a chance for a valid and honorable victory into this President’s conduct of the Iraq war.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Defending the Caucuses
IOWA IS "LIBERAL" ONLY IF YOU HAVE NEVER LIVED HERE
By Jim Hutter, Ph. D. © 2005
Assoc. Prof. of Political Science, Iowa State University
Iowa is fly-over land to those who live on the East and West coasts. To print and broadcast reporters, Iowa is a cold week in January once every four years. And Iowa is a favorite whipping boy for those who want the DNC to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation precinct caucuses.
But Iowa is NOT one of the most liberal states in the nation. Nor is its politics dominated by special interests.
Prior to his run for the Democratic nomination in 2004, Howard Dean said, "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties….They represent the extremes." (Washington Post 1/14/05)
After more than a year spent meeting Iowans, Dean concluded that his previous assessment of Iowa politics was wrong. Recently, while running for DNC Chair, Dean has said that he sees no reason to remove Iowa from its first place position.
Is Grassley a Liberal Dove?
Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards….Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War," wrote Peter Beinart (Washington Post 1/14/05). Being against a war is liberal?
Suggesting that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), whose 2004 presidential support score was 94 percent pro-Bush, is a liberal dove boggles the minds of Iowans.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (1/11/04) perpetuated the Iowa-is-liberal myth, saying: "Iowa's voting-age population [is] heavily tilted toward the Democratic Party's liberal and labor base." Actually, Iowa Republicans usually outnumber Democrats, and no-party registrants often outnumber both. Al Gore barely carried Iowa in 2000; Bush43 barely carried it in 2004. Where's the tilt?
This fallacy is regularly repeated in the media. A generation ago it was said that because Iowans opposed spending more money on defense, they were liberal doves. No, they were opposed to spending so much money!
Actual Caucus Results
As for Iowa Democratic caucus-goers being liberal extremists, here are the actual caucus winners, beginning in 1968: Edmund Muskie, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Dick Gephardt (who edged the more liberal Paul Simon and Michael Dukakis in 1988). In 1992, Iowa's own Tom Harkin won, followed by Clinton, and after a vigorous contest, Gore handily beat the more liberal Bill Bradley in 2000.
Widely portrayed as a liberal, Dean did not win in Iowa in 2004; he crash-landed in third place with 18 percent, far behind John Kerry (38%) and John Edwards (32%) and ahead of Gephardt (11%) and self-proclaimed ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich (1%).
So where is the liberal bias of Iowa Democrats? Neither George McGovern, nor Fred Harris, nor Mo Udall, nor Ted Kennedy, nor Dukakis, nor Bradley, nor Kucinich ever rode a liberal wave to victory here.
Iowa a Bad Influence?
What about the "special interests," meaning Iowa's labor unions? This is an agricultural state more than a manufacturing state. Iowa leads in the production of corn, soybeans, and hogs, not automobiles.
Except for the firefighters union, which went with Kerry, labor split its endorsements between Gephardt and Dean. Neither candidate survived the Iowa caucuses. We have well-organized unions, but they do not dominate Iowa politics.
As Dean found out, neither is Iowa the state where the candidate with the biggest organization always wins. But Iowans' enthusiasm and organizational experience helps all candidates put their best foot forward.
In 2004 the number one issue guiding Iowa Democratic voters' choice was electability. Not who was the most liberal or who had labor's support or even who had the best field organization.
Ask the Candidates
Perhaps the politicians who campaigned in Iowa know best the value of the Iowa caucuses. Joe Biden spoke in a private residence in Ames in 1988 to 75 or so Democrats. He told them that on the day before he had been in Des Moines talking to a labor group. He was amazed that he got many questions on foreign policy and domestic policy "but not one question about labor!"
When he dropped out of the race later, Biden flew back to Des Moines to thank the many volunteers and staff who had made him an early front runner, extolling the Iowa experience.
On Monday night before Election Day 1988, Dukakis stopped in Des Moines just so he could thank Iowans, some 2000 of whom met him at the airport about 2 a.m. That was the value of the Iowa caucuses to Dukakis even though he had come in third.
Iowa has retail politics. Meeting candidates in their homes and schools and churches, Iowans take their caucus responsibilities seriously. The local news media provide extensive coverage for a year. It's a pretty level playing field.
The Blame Game
Some blame Iowans for having a veto over who will be the nominee, while others blame Iowans for never picking the next Democratic winner. Just as wrong is calling this a state of ultra-liberals and labor union members. Iowa helps to winnow the field, suggesting which aspirants are the most serious contenders.
Instead of blaming Iowa and its caucuses, perhaps we should blame the media, which went bonkers over Al Gore's "stiffness" and then had a feeding frenzy over the "Dean scream." Or blame the Democratic Party for treating the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton as serious contenders for the nomination, although both made welcome contributions to the 2004 debates.
Or blame the fact that the primary schedule was so bunched up that the race was over by March. Blame proportional representation, with supporters clinging to long-defeated candidates all the way to the national convention rather than building a crescendo of support for the eventual winner. And certainly blame the national conventions for no longer being conventions but just celebrations of who won.
But don't blame Iowa.
By Jim Hutter, Ph. D. © 2005
Assoc. Prof. of Political Science, Iowa State University
Iowa is fly-over land to those who live on the East and West coasts. To print and broadcast reporters, Iowa is a cold week in January once every four years. And Iowa is a favorite whipping boy for those who want the DNC to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation precinct caucuses.
But Iowa is NOT one of the most liberal states in the nation. Nor is its politics dominated by special interests.
Prior to his run for the Democratic nomination in 2004, Howard Dean said, "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties….They represent the extremes." (Washington Post 1/14/05)
After more than a year spent meeting Iowans, Dean concluded that his previous assessment of Iowa politics was wrong. Recently, while running for DNC Chair, Dean has said that he sees no reason to remove Iowa from its first place position.
Is Grassley a Liberal Dove?
Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards….Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War," wrote Peter Beinart (Washington Post 1/14/05). Being against a war is liberal?
Suggesting that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), whose 2004 presidential support score was 94 percent pro-Bush, is a liberal dove boggles the minds of Iowans.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (1/11/04) perpetuated the Iowa-is-liberal myth, saying: "Iowa's voting-age population [is] heavily tilted toward the Democratic Party's liberal and labor base." Actually, Iowa Republicans usually outnumber Democrats, and no-party registrants often outnumber both. Al Gore barely carried Iowa in 2000; Bush43 barely carried it in 2004. Where's the tilt?
This fallacy is regularly repeated in the media. A generation ago it was said that because Iowans opposed spending more money on defense, they were liberal doves. No, they were opposed to spending so much money!
Actual Caucus Results
As for Iowa Democratic caucus-goers being liberal extremists, here are the actual caucus winners, beginning in 1968: Edmund Muskie, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Dick Gephardt (who edged the more liberal Paul Simon and Michael Dukakis in 1988). In 1992, Iowa's own Tom Harkin won, followed by Clinton, and after a vigorous contest, Gore handily beat the more liberal Bill Bradley in 2000.
Widely portrayed as a liberal, Dean did not win in Iowa in 2004; he crash-landed in third place with 18 percent, far behind John Kerry (38%) and John Edwards (32%) and ahead of Gephardt (11%) and self-proclaimed ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich (1%).
So where is the liberal bias of Iowa Democrats? Neither George McGovern, nor Fred Harris, nor Mo Udall, nor Ted Kennedy, nor Dukakis, nor Bradley, nor Kucinich ever rode a liberal wave to victory here.
Iowa a Bad Influence?
What about the "special interests," meaning Iowa's labor unions? This is an agricultural state more than a manufacturing state. Iowa leads in the production of corn, soybeans, and hogs, not automobiles.
Except for the firefighters union, which went with Kerry, labor split its endorsements between Gephardt and Dean. Neither candidate survived the Iowa caucuses. We have well-organized unions, but they do not dominate Iowa politics.
As Dean found out, neither is Iowa the state where the candidate with the biggest organization always wins. But Iowans' enthusiasm and organizational experience helps all candidates put their best foot forward.
In 2004 the number one issue guiding Iowa Democratic voters' choice was electability. Not who was the most liberal or who had labor's support or even who had the best field organization.
Ask the Candidates
Perhaps the politicians who campaigned in Iowa know best the value of the Iowa caucuses. Joe Biden spoke in a private residence in Ames in 1988 to 75 or so Democrats. He told them that on the day before he had been in Des Moines talking to a labor group. He was amazed that he got many questions on foreign policy and domestic policy "but not one question about labor!"
When he dropped out of the race later, Biden flew back to Des Moines to thank the many volunteers and staff who had made him an early front runner, extolling the Iowa experience.
On Monday night before Election Day 1988, Dukakis stopped in Des Moines just so he could thank Iowans, some 2000 of whom met him at the airport about 2 a.m. That was the value of the Iowa caucuses to Dukakis even though he had come in third.
Iowa has retail politics. Meeting candidates in their homes and schools and churches, Iowans take their caucus responsibilities seriously. The local news media provide extensive coverage for a year. It's a pretty level playing field.
The Blame Game
Some blame Iowans for having a veto over who will be the nominee, while others blame Iowans for never picking the next Democratic winner. Just as wrong is calling this a state of ultra-liberals and labor union members. Iowa helps to winnow the field, suggesting which aspirants are the most serious contenders.
Instead of blaming Iowa and its caucuses, perhaps we should blame the media, which went bonkers over Al Gore's "stiffness" and then had a feeding frenzy over the "Dean scream." Or blame the Democratic Party for treating the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton as serious contenders for the nomination, although both made welcome contributions to the 2004 debates.
Or blame the fact that the primary schedule was so bunched up that the race was over by March. Blame proportional representation, with supporters clinging to long-defeated candidates all the way to the national convention rather than building a crescendo of support for the eventual winner. And certainly blame the national conventions for no longer being conventions but just celebrations of who won.
But don't blame Iowa.
